SBS2K3 future expansion and upgrade path

[Fred B.]

We are now running SBS2K3 full with also the optional SQL 2005 and ISA
server. I know ;-( but in our case it runs smoothly. Our network also
includes a Windows 2003 server running Progress database server and a
Windows 2003 Terminal Server. We have a future interest in a SharePoint
(MOSS) 2007 server with a separate SQL 2008 server to take it down from the
SBS2k3 box.

So for next year I am looking at buying SQL server 2008 enterprise and MOSS
2007/10. Instead of buying multiple hardware boxes, I am now looking at the
possibility of using Virtualization on a HP DL380 G6 2x quadcore xeon 2.8Ghz
processors, 64GB of ram, and RAID 5 SCSI.SAS 15K.

Is there a SBS FAQ on using virtualization in a SBS network? Sources and
examples?

Thanks in advance,

Fred Blum

[Leythos]

In article <Ohl6Ab8g...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, h.f.b****@nemad.com
says...

Question:

Why SQL Enterprise? If you're running a SBS shop I can't see why you
would need SQL Enterprise version?

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP]]

In addition to Leythos comment, have you looked at SBS 2008, which comes
with two copies of Windows, one for SBS, the other for a separate box with
Windows Server 2008 and SQL for Small Business?

-
Larry
Please post the resolution to your
issue so others may benefit
-
Get Your SBS Health Check at
www.sbsbpa.com

[Fred B.]

I have looked at SBS2008 premium and I agree that it is a sure improvement
compared to overloading SBS2000 and SBS2003 with both exchange and SQL
server. We need some additional features not included in SQL 2008 standard
from SBS 2008 premium.

My question was regarding virtualization as a possible future growth path
over buying multiple single servers and not utilizing all resources to their
full potential. You can read enough about the general concept and potential
benefits of virtualization but I have not found any way guide for setting up
the necessary hardware for testing and evaluation.
I wonder if the hardware (HP DL380 G6) we are considering has any merit in
setting up virtualization or that you have to go overboard on hardware
requirements first.

TIA,

Fred

--
.
"Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP]" <lstruc...@mis-wizards.com> wrote in message
news:4e683515748c8...@news.microsoft.com...

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

An HP DL380 is a solid choice, assuming it gives you sufficient disk space,
etc. Using it as a virtualization host will certainly allow you to
consolidate at least some of your servers. Whether it will get you all of
them is something I can't answer without doing some serious work to evaluate
current and future load, etc.

There's no magic to virtualization. It won't magically give you more
powerful CPUs or more RAM. What it does is allow you to consolidate
underutilized servers onto fewer, but more fully utilied, servers. And there
are some caveats. Some products (SBS 2003, for one) are not supported in a
VM. There won't be USB or FAX modem access inside the VMs without a third
party solution. And it adds another layer of product to understand. All that
being said, I certainly think your environment is a good candidate for
virtualization.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel

"Fred B." <h.f.b****@nemad.com> wrote in message
news:e0hQzo%23gKH...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Susan Bradley]

Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
> An HP DL380 is a solid choice, assuming it gives you sufficient disk
> space, etc. Using it as a virtualization host will certainly allow you
> to consolidate at least some of your servers. Whether it will get you
> all of them is something I can't answer without doing some serious work
> to evaluate current and future load, etc.
>
> There's no magic to virtualization. It won't magically give you more
> powerful CPUs or more RAM. What it does is allow you to consolidate
> underutilized servers onto fewer, but more fully utilied, servers. And
> there are some caveats. Some products (SBS 2003, for one) are not
> supported in a VM. There won't be USB or FAX modem access inside the VMs
> without a third party solution. And it adds another layer of product to
> understand. All that being said, I certainly think your environment is a
> good candidate for virtualization.
>

The issue is more about support for the 2k3 era products in
virtualization than anything else.

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

I agree, support is a key issue here. I'd much rather see this used to move
to SBS 2k8 and work off of that as a base, using the second server license
for your hyper-v host and Terminal Server guest, even if he doesn't
need/want the SQL license for it.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel

"Susan Bradley" <sbra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:OJ7wx0Bh...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

[Fred Blum - fill in the blanks]

Hi Charlie,

I am not thinking about moving the SBS2K3 to a virtual machine. That will
remain on its DL380 G5 by itself. But I want to take from it the ISA server
and SQL server functionality before swing migration to SBS2K8 64k.

I have two servers that are candidates for replacement, the Progress
database server and the Terminal server. Thinking about turning the Progress
database server into an ISA server. Furthermore for next year we have need
for a seperate SQL2008 enterprise server and a SharePoint Server. So for
next year I would be looking at 4 new hardware boxes, three if I mix SQL
server with Progress.
In the opinion of our hardware supplier this makes an ideal case for
virtualization. So far I have always understood my own network., but I have
no experience with virtualization and VSA SAN, want to understand and test
it, before I make the decision next year.
I can download trial software to test, but need a way guide for setting up
the necessary hardware, and best practices. Isn't that information out
there
yet?

TIA,

Fred

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <Cha...@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> schreef in bericht
news:O9joThAh...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

The sizing of a server is a complex process, and one you aren't going to
find a magic answer for here or in some whitepaper. That being said, your
own experience is the best answer. You know your own network's load, so the
complexity has already been answered by what you're currently running. And
virtualizing the workload really doesn't change anything.

If you are running the terminal server now on a dual core, 4 GB machine, and
it's not overloaded (I note that it's a 32-bit TS), then when you virtualize
it, assign 2 virtual CPUs and 4GB to the virtual machine for it. If the
Progress database runs comfortably on 4 cores and 4 GB of RAM, assign 4 CPUs
and 4 GB of RAM. And so on. Total up what come up with, save a CPU and 1-2GB
of RAM for the host, and you're in business. And also note that if one or
the other of those loads isn't using all that much of its CPU now (very
likely IME), you're still not going to be using all that much CPU when
virtualized. (Virtualization allows you to overcommit CPU cores, since there
isn't a one to one relationship. Hyper-V does NOT allow you to overcommit
RAM, however, for very good reasons.)

Now, future proofing. Terminal Server is one load that seriously benefits
from moving to 64-bit. If you have a need to support >50 TS users, you
should absolutely be running 64-bit on that VM. Even at the 25 user level
you'll likely see some improvements, and when you move to 64-bit you are no
longer limited to 4GB of RAM for Windows Server Standard Edition.

The fact is that I'd be astonished if you couldn't run your entire SBS
network on that single server, and there's no particular reason to buy 64-GB
of RAM for it until you're ready to virtualize workloads that require it. Do
make sure you choose at least 5520's for CPUs so you get the hyper-threading
support, and since it's expensive to change CPUs later. But it's cheap to
add RAM later. You'll also want to have a dedicated NIC for each VM if you
can (plus one extra for managment of the host), so toss in a 4port PIC-e NIC
while you're at it.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel

"Fred Blum - fill in the blanks" <h.f.bl**@nemad.com> wrote in message
news:%23%23sMBbIh...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Fred B.]

Thanks Russel for the rules of thumb.

I will be apllying that to the offer and advice of our hardware supplier. I
believe that what he is going to suggest is based on HP VMware. My first
impression of his bald figure was that it was a bit overboard.

Fred

[Fred B.]

I found the Microsoft Assessment and Planning toolkit and ran it on my Network to establish the current workload and advice for using Hyper-V server. It addressed both my W03 Terminal Server and W03 Progress database Server as possible candidates for virtualization and with the specifications of the DL380 G6 it still would have resources for adding another server.

 

This looks promising.

 

Fred

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Good.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel

"Fred B." <h.f.b****@nemad.com> wrote in message

news:epm4QpJi...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

[Fred B.]

Thanks Russel for your advice sofar, I prefer informing myself over trusting resellers to much as I learned the hard way in the past.

 

The HP reseller is working on a VMware solution advice like HP's Virtualization Bundle Entry HA or Scalable HA. HP Info 1 and HP Info 2. Would VMware fit well within a SBS2003 or future SBS2008 environment for only the application and terminal servers?

 

Or is an entry with Hyper-V more advisable? HP Info  3

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Fred

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

VMWare is one solution, and one that HP supports. Personally, I prefer
Hyper-V. Frankly, I find it more economical in both initial cost (free) and
long term cost (familiar Windows tools and interface, plus assured
supportability with future Microsoft offerings.)

Before Hyper-V, it wasn't really a contest on performance -- VMWare owned
the high end. With the release of Hyper-V, that has changed and I just don't
see a compelling case for VMWare. If you're already a VMWare shop, then
stick with it if you want. But if you're new to virtualization, definitely I
would choose Hyper-V. You can choose the free Hyper-V Server, or simply
enable the Hyper-V role on Windows Server 2008. (In both cases, I'd prefer
R2 over the original 2008 version, but it's not a critical difference. )
The base Windows Server license could come as part of the TS or application
server license if you're upgrading either of those to 2008 or 2008 R2.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel

"Fred B." <h.f.b****@nemad.com> wrote in message

news:OouATJUi...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...